Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: July ::
CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1460  Tuesday, 20 July 2004

[1]     From:   Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 19 Jul 2004 14:03:34 -0400
        Subj:   Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

[2]     From:   W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 19 Jul 2004 15:03:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1455 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Jul 2004 10:03:57 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1455 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 19 Jul 2004 14:03:34 -0400
Subject:        Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

Two quick points: (1) Surely it is revealing that no two people in this
thread seem quite to agree about the precise meaning of
"intertextuality." Would that happen in other disciplines which use a
specialized vocabulary? For the most part, I think the answer is "No."
(2) As to castration complexes in the MV: Gabriel has a point. Purses,
moneybags, stones, pens, rings, and so on form a kind of imagistic
cluster that should be explained somehow. I don't have the whole answer,
but it seems to me that Antonio fears that he is not a real man; Shylock
is unmanned by the trial; and Portia is the one who unmans BOTH Antonio
and Shylock. ("The power of the ring"?)

In short, this play conflates race, class, and gender, and problematizes
all three.

Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W.L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 19 Jul 2004 15:03:01 -0400
Subject: 15.1455 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1455 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

With regard to David Evett's attack on texts that dumb down Shakespeare,
I asked, "Does David use the Norton First Folio when he teaches
Shakespeare's plays?" with the apparent implication that the Norton
First Folio has not been dumbed down, when, of course, it has been, in
the second edition, by both Hinman and Blayney.

And, of course, the First Folio (1623) was dumbed down by its editors,
compositors, and overseers of the press -- as were the Quartos.

I not sure where the dumbing down process began, but surely when
Shakespeare handed his foul papers to the scribe and/or to the keeper of
the book, the process of clarifying (i.e. dumbing down) Shakespeare's
language began.

How can we protect our students from this invidious process?

Bill Godshalk

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Jul 2004 10:03:57 +0100
Subject: 15.1455 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1455 CFP - Shakespearean Intertexts in Canada

Hardy wants threads wound up where possible, so I'm happy to accept that
David Bishop is quite entitled to his view that Kristeva's notion (as
articulated, and not necessarily well, by me) of intertextuality doesn't
do anything new. He's also entitled to reject the insights that
psychoanalysis have given us. Personally, I'm pleased that in academia
these things still command attention.

I would like it noted, however, that those who've pursued objections to
the original CFP that we're discussing have not been able to show that
it made no sense. Rather, we've seen the familiar reaction of students
to something new and challenging: first rejection that it makes no
sense, then intelligent probing to test the power of the new idea to
explain known phenomena, and finally a declaration of 'well, we knew
that already under a different name'. (When you hear them repeat it to
their friends in the bar with that breeziness that implies that everyone
in their field knows this sort of thing, you're entitled to a wry smile.)

I exclude Bill Arnold from this generous characterization of education
for obvious reasons.

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.